Innovative Strategies of Sustainable Waste Management in Recreational Activities for a Clean and Safe Environment in Turkey, Lithuania, and Morocco

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author

Please find my comments on the manuscript for correction, which are as follows:

The title:

Line 2-4, I recommend the author to update the title to be clearer as the following:

) Innovative Strategies of Sustainable Waste Management in Recreational Activities for a Clean and Safe Environment in Turkey, Lithuania, and Morocco).

Abstract:

Line 17-20, I recommend that the author rewrite this paragraph because it is logical to define what is meant by stone areas. After that, it is necessary to define the main problem related to the research and the objectives of the research.

Line 27-30, The author recommends adding the most important results, which were clearly demonstrated in the research, which confirmed that the use of carbon footprint was one of the ideal solutions that contribute to changing solid waste management strategies.

Introduction:

Line 53-56, I recommend that the author rewrite the paragraph, as the author mentioned the average production of solid waste without specifying the places and the most important areas that produce waste significantly. Therefore, I recommend that the author specify the areas and quantities, to be placed in each of the three countries as a case study of solid waste management.

Line 73-80, I recommend the author add this paragraph as a case study of the problem statement because it expresses the extent to which the environment is affected by the accumulation of solid waste levels and hinders its smooth processing. Therefore, the basic problem must be identified, and the study must be convincing and contribute greatly to change.

Line 95-104, The author recommends rewriting the objectives, especially the second and third, which are identifying common and country-specific issues related to and proposing innovative strategies for waste management. This is considered general talk and must be specific, meaning that the issues are specific to the production of solid waste, which can be greatly benefited from through the strategies used in recycling. Is there one model in use or more than one model? It must be clarified.

 

Material and Methods:

Line 106, I think the author should change the title to be more specific such as research methodology.

Line 113-125, The author mentioned why these countries were chosen as a study for the research, but he did not confirm the locations of the samples in these countries and why they were chosen specifically. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the reasons for which these recreational areas were chosen for the study.

In table 2, I recommend that the author review Table No. 2 for clarification. This means that the amount of waste per person per day must be written. The author also did not mention how to calculate the average waste in a whole year. This means that it was calculated by day, then by month, then by year. This must be clarified.

In table 3, I recommend the author to change the title to be Annual average of different waste types and the amount.

Line 208-215, the author mentioned that he contacted experts in forestry and entertainment fields. Was there a survey prepared, was there verification through contacting them, and was the Content Validity Index (CVI) calculated for each expert? It is very important.

In Table 4, the author mentioned some basic information found in the forest experts. He did not mention the extent of the benefit, the questions should be added and the extent of their benefit, and the calculation of the Construct Content Validity Index (CVI) for the 45 experts. Therefore, I suggest that the author add a column to the table explaining the CVI and calculating Reliability using the following: Cronbach's Alpha Rule of Thumb Concerning

Cronbach’s Alpha	Internal consistency
α > .9	Excellent
.9 > α > .8	Good
.8 > α > .7	Acceptable
.7 > α > .6	Questionable
.6 > α > .5	Poor
.5 > α	Unacceptable

 Results:

Line 279-281, Are there studies that confirmed that the results were consistent with the number of visitors to entertainment areas, or did they differ according to the season? How were the percentages of each type of waste and the total percentage calculated?

Line 283-286, I think the author should add a figure explaining the percentages of each type of waste.

Line 290-293, Was a a pilot study conducted to confirm the results, or did the author rely on the results of the research over a full year? Was the sample size calculated according to Cochrane’s equation, where it is confirmed that the sample size does not fall below a certain size? For example, is 290 consistent with the population size in the three countries or cities in which the survey was conducted or not?

Line 295-300, According to table No. 6, the answers were general and not useful enough. For example, in Turkey the answer was lack of education and awareness, and in Lithuania the answer was usually short-term use. As for Morocco, the answer was weak infrastructure. There were other answers from the participants, and were some of them repeated between countries and some, and when was the judgment if the answers were logical or illogical according to the waste produced in the countries? Therefore, I suggest to the author to modify the table to be consistent with all the answers, and to put another column in which he shows the percentages of all the answers.

Line 331, table 7, I also, suggest to the author to modify the table to be consistent with all the answers, and to put another column in which he shows the percentages of all the answers.

Line 357, table 8, I also, suggest to the author to modify the table to be consistent with all the answers, and to put another column in which he shows the percentages of all the answers.

Line 418-421, According to Table 9, this is a very important point, especially since the questions fall under the administrative, legal, and structural challenges of waste management. Were the answers based on their knowledge of the laws in effect in the countries, or were they not as accurate as possible? I suggested to the author to add a column indicating the percentages of the questions, as well as another column indicating whether there are laws and legislations in effect or not in effect in these points.

Line 454, table 9, I suggest that the author modify the table to reflect each section, providing appropriate solutions for each item. For example:

1. Type of waste and its accumulation.
2. Waste management practices.
3. Shortcomings in waste collection, separation, or disposal processes.
4. Administrative, legal, and structural challenges to waste management.

Discussion:

Line 514-522, I suggest to the author to clarify what is meant by the great impacts of plastic waste on nature, ecosystems and biodiversity, and regarding Turkey, is recycling done in one or more types of plastic waste (12%)?

Line 523-531, The paragraph does not clearly explain how to dispose of organic and food waste. I recommend that the author rewrite the paragraph, explaining the methods for disposing of this waste and how to control methane gas as a primary product of organic waste.

Conclusion:

Line 642, the conclusions are very long, so I suggest that the author rewrite the conclusions in an organized manner, adding the most important results that will make the reader understand the importance of the article. I also suggest that he add a section for recommendations that represent direct solutions that will have a significant impact on sustainable waste management.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Dear Sir

I think the manuscript needs to be updated and proofread to be more accepted for publication. 

                                 Thank you 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Your contributions to our work are highly appreciated. By addressing the issues you pointed out, you have significantly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find attached our response report regarding your comments and suggestions.

Best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper investigates waste management innovations in forest recreation contexts across Türkiye, Lithuania, and Morocco.  I suggest first to the authors to improve the literature review. to They can group studies into thematic blocks. The theoretical framework must be improved by  switching from the actual empirical design to a conceptual design. The authors should approach an institutional theory, in order to compare countries, in which they can justify the variables that they choice. The discussion mostly restates findings  without interpreting them in a suggestive way. The authors should place greater emphasis on describing the differences among the countries studied and on analyzing how their specific socio-cultural, legal, and infrastructural contexts influence waste management outcomes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English requires professional processing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Your contributions to our work are highly appreciated. By addressing the issues you pointed out, you have significantly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find attached our response report regarding your comments and suggestions.

Best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled “Innovative Waste Management Strategies for Clean and Safe Environment in Recreational Activities of Forest Spaces: A Case Study of Türkiye, Lithuania and Morocco.” Your study addresses an important and timely topic, combining quantitative carbon footprint analysis with qualitative expert interviews across three countries. The mixed-methods approach and international comparison provide a valuable contribution to the literature on sustainable forest management and recreational waste.

the manuscript would benefit from more detailed explanations regarding the recruitment of interview participants and the processes used for coding and analyzing qualitative data, in order to enhance methodological transparency.

The authors should also clarify the unique contribution of this study in relation to their previous work, as there appears to be some overlap with earlier publications. A more explicit discussion of the study's limitations particularly concerning the use of secondary data for waste estimation and the potential for bias in expert interview would further strengthen the credibility and rigor of the findings.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. Your contributions to our work are highly appreciated. By addressing the issues you pointed out, you have significantly helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find attached our response report regarding your comments and suggestions.

Best regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author 

Thank you very much for your correction, but some minor corrections should be made. 

                                                Thank you 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The corrections and improvements you requested have been made and are highlighted in red within the manuscript. We sincerely thank you for your support and understanding throughout this process and extend our respectful regards.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your comments and for your effort. The paper has now a better approach.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your valuable feedback. We also appreciate your support and understanding throughout the process. Respectfully, we send our regards.

Authors